Supreme Court allows pro-life group to challenge Ohio ban on campaign false statements

FoxNews.com ^ | 16- June-2014 | FoxNews.com

[topher]

he Supreme Court delivered a major victory on Monday to an anti-abortion group that sought to challenge an Ohio law that bans campaign statements deemed to be false.

The justices, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Susan B. Anthony List can go ahead with a lawsuit challenging the law as a violation of free-speech rights.

[Repeal 16-17]

This is what SCOTUS ruled:

Petitioners in this case have demonstrated an injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a determination whether the remaining Article III standing requirements are met.

So this case continues for now. Hopefully, Susan B. Anthony List will ultimately be successful. I'm also very happy that this was a unanimous decision, but that does not mean that the Liberal Justices would rule correctly on the merits of this case (the free speech issue).

[cynwoody]

This will annoy Reid, Schumer, and Markey.

[topher]

There was a ruling today on third party Gun Issues:

The decision is:

Abramski v. United States

Scotusblog.com has an article on it:

Opinion analysis: No stand-in gun buyers allowed

[BuckeyeTexan]

Correct, but Abramski did not present questions under 2A. The legal questions presented were:

1. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a fact “material to the lawfulness of the sale” of the firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)?

2. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a piece of information “required ... to be kept” by a federally licensed firearm dealer under § 924(a)(I)(A).

[WKTimpco]

This of course is a good decision.

The Attorney General declined to defend
the law; so it stands, right?

(CA Prop 8)

SCOTUS picking and choosing rationales?

(NOT saying the OH law is good!)

[topher]

SCOTUS Blog.com has caught up and posted an article on this:

Opinion analysis: False politicking law open to challenge

[topher]

The law is not overturned at this point (my mistake).

What SCOTUS ruled was that the Susan B. Anthony List could sue former Rep. Steve Driehaus.

The Court of Appeals prevented the lawsuit, but SCOTUS has sent a CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT allowing the lawsuit.

My understanding of Certiorari, in legal terms, it is an order from a higher court to a lower court.

In this case, SCOTUS is saying that the lawsuit against former Democratic Congressman Steve Driehaus is allowed.

However, the SCOTUS BLOG.com article seems to say that the Ohio law might eventually be overturned...

[topher]

SCOTUS Blog.com has posted the following article (opinion) on this:

Opinion analysis: False politicking law open to challenge

[The Unknown Republican]

Exactly the problem with this sort of law.

[exDemMom]

If the "political speech" is demonstrably false, why don't politicians simply bring a lawsuit against the perpetrator? It would only take a few victories in court before all political campaigns straightened out/up.

It isn't that easy. Most of the liberal politicians who lie through their teeth in campaigns would be quick to accuse their opponents of lying. This is because by the time their opponents would be able to prove they weren't lying, the campaign would be over with a landslide victory for the liberal. This isn't about truthfulness in advertising, it's about shutting up political opponents.

[DoodleDawg]

The justices, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Susan B. Anthony List can go ahead with a lawsuit challenging the law as a violation of free-speech rights.

So the court ruled that the Susan B. Anthony List has the right to lie on campaign commercials on the grounds of free speech?

Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas cited concerns about the chilling effect on groups wishing to run political ads.

Yeah why run ads if you have to make sure they're factually correct first? I suppose if the court had gone the other way it would have basically banned all political advertisements, and we can't have that.

[stremba]

The trouble is that issues presented in political ads are often not black and white. Suppose for instance that Congress was considering a bill that would have raised taxes by 300% on all Americans. At the last minute, an amendment was added that would provide funding to veterans for medical care. Now let’s say that Congressman Butthead voted against this bill.

Now Congressman Butthead’s opponent runs an ad stating that Congressman Butthead doesn’t care about our troops — he voted against a bill that would have provided funding for medical care for the troops. Is that a lie? It’s certainly technically true. Congressman Butthead did vote against the bill in question. However, it certainly is misleading. Who gets to decide whether such an ad is a lie or not? Isn’t it better just to keep the First Amendment working as it was intended to and allow Congressman Butthead to run his own ad telling why he voted against this bill?

[staytrue]

Ohio supreme court is 100% republican.